Thanks ever so much for your careful reading and criticisms, but I'm trying to do philosophy correctly here, according to my own ideas of what philosophy should be.

Extremism in thought-experiment is no vice. I have mentioned these harmless conclusions in order to get people to think that the idea might be more important than it seems on the face of it. If they make me easier to refute or disbelieve, that is a good thing.

If you have the right sort of friends, approach them with whatever version of this argument you think you need to get them to think about it. If they can think, they will draw all my conclusions for themselves in a few weeks.

If they can't, I don't care about their opinion, there are plenty like them in the world, they will believe whatever someone eminent tells them is true, as long as it is not too scary.

[That's not a bad heuristic, that's what I mostly use too.]

To increase the credibility of the article, IMHO you need to ditch pretty much the entire "SOME SELECTED POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS / PREDICTIONS" section. Reading through that, it sounds very much like you're trying to solve unrelated problems with your newly found hammer:

Dieting - you're not really predicting anything here. Turn it into a prediction of some sort or it's just dead weight.

Diabetes - you've got no evidence for any kind of common hormone suppression mechanism, and my understanding of how hormone chemistry works places the probability of a common mechanism at 'pretty damn low'. Occam's razor says you should prune this.

Heart disease - if this was once an indicator, you could instead propose a "weak prediction" that heart disease may be more prevalent across the broad spectrum of disorders you're trying to link.

Smoking - prune this as well for 1) lack of evidence 2) the fact that smoking has so many harmful effects that it will completely swamp your signal, and 3) the fact that smoking is still highly politicized and it's likely to mindkill your audience. It doesn't contribute to or strengthen your case, rather it (strongly) indicates that you're trying too hard to pattern match your model. Leaving this in pretty much screams 'crackpot'.

Regarding what you have to say to get someone to look at it seriously: stick to the facts, form a model, prune dead weight, make predictions, publicize your predictions in a centralized consistent location, research your predictions and see if they pan out, and publish. Address criticism, fix issues, make contacts, update your model and predictions and republish. There are anonymized medical databases that can be used for at least some of your research. I do not know how mortals get access to them, but I do know they exist. What you have right now is barely at the hypothesis stage.

TL/DR - formalize your model, use that model to make predictions, publicize those predictions so you can't cheat, test those predictions, lather, rinse, repeat. If you can put this together in a sufficiently coherent way, I can get a few people to look at it.

This all seems pretty ordinary and uncontroversial to me. It's about what I'd expect when 'doing it right'.

Honestly that hundred point difference at the top of the Go ratings isn't really going to matter. At best, it probably means that the top player has a ten percent chance of winning a single game, instead of a two percent chance. I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear that AlphaGo is playing at a rating in excess of four thousand, and could be expected to beat the best human players 99% of the time. Frankly, my gut instinct watching the livestream is that AlphaGo is playing at such a high level that even the players at the top of the rankings are having a hard time identifying it.

It must be very frustrating to be in that position - you're supposedly one of the best in the world, and for the first half of the game your opponent makes mostly ok but not great moves including some likely mistakes and weird moves that seem pointless. Then near endgame you've somehow ended up 20 points behind with no hope of victory and you're not even sure how it happened.

Lee Sedol isn't at the top of Go ratings. How would Ke Jie fare against AlphaGo? A match against the best human player would be a better test of AlphaGo capabilities.

Keep in mind that adding a 'random number' instruction to a turing machine allows it to create output of infinite complexity, and that pretty much all compute hardware these days contains a hard RNG based on quantum randomness.

EphemeralNight and Old_Gold's posts seem to have jumped up in votes massively in the last 1-2 days when they were both in the negative iirc.

It's a fable about sexual politics. Gender is inescapable to the discussion.

the OP isn't about you [...] You're just not that important.

None of the criticism of the OP, however intemperate, looks to me as if it's based in the idea that "the OP is about you"; quite the opposite. The basis of the criticism is that (e.g.) the OP is about women, or the OP is about rape, or the OP is about sex. I don't think you can say "just not that important" about those.